Successful Level 1 (or 2 and 3) certification launch and recovery requirements for passing

[High Desert Rocketry]

Over the years, I've seen different things that have either been ok or not ok for getting your cert on a flight depending on the person(s) observing the flight. Some have said if the rocket can be launched again, some have said with 'minimal damage' some have said zippers are ok, some have said...

I'd like some opinions to a few things that have happened on launches as to being ok for passing:

Wrong delay, hard recovery, broken fin.

Parachute doesn't deploy but rocket not damaged.

Fin(s) break off on landing.

Nose cone separates from rest of rocket.

Motor retention fails but everything is undamaged.

I'd like to get opinions on whether these would still pass for certifications, feel free to add other anomalies.

 

[dhbarr]

Each line IMO would be a chance to retry.

Either they would require the bird to be mended for safe flight, or they violated one of the safety rules.

 

[David Schwantz]

+1. All of your examples would fail along with zippers. Now if the chute drags rocket across ground and it just scrapes off paint, that would pass.

 

[David Schwantz]

Best to ask the person signing you off.

 

[firemanup]

All fails

 

[prfesser]

IMHO a successful cert means that the rocket can be re-prepped and flown again with minor issues. For example, a fin that chipped off a corner is minor, I'd give it a pass, though others may differ. A nose cone that separated because the little molded attachment point broke is not. (NEVER use the molded attachment for high power!! Add a proper eyebolt and washers!)

Best -- Terry

 

[Kelly]

I think that the rocket (all components) needs to recover under controlled descent (which means a NC separation, motor retention failure, or non-deployed chute would fail) and the rocket needs to be re-flyable without repairs (which means all your other cases, including zipper) would fail. This is actually required by TRA rules; not sure about NAR.

 

[Tommie D]

https://www.nar.org/high-power-rocketry-info/level-1-hpr-certification-procedures/
https://www.tripoli.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=795696&module_id=468544
These cover everything you need to know about successful certification.

 

[mtnmanak]

Have to agree that the ones listed in the OP are fails.

Also agree with Terry that, basically, on a Level 1 flight, outside of a full recovery failure or safety violation, if you can repack the recovery items, throw a new motor in and fly it again, it is a success.

For Level 2 and 3, I think the standard should be higher.

I think an interesting question for Level 1 is – what if the flier shows up and has never built or flown a single LPR or MPR in their life? In other words, if they show up and this Level 1 rocket is literally the first rocket they have ever built and they want you to certify them, do you do it?

This happens a lot with university teams that show up and want to be certified en masse. I am not sure how much this happens at other places, but it happens at almost every launch I attend at one of the sites that is close to a large engineering school.

On the one hand, I am not aware of any explicit NAR or Tripoli rule that says you need to have flown model rockets in order to get HPR certified, on the other hand, in many cases, these are 18 or 19 year old folks that, by their own admission, have not even seen a rocket launched before. By certifying them, you are handing them a license to do some incredibly dangerous things.

I have seen this go both ways. I have seen two different TAPs handle it completely differently. In one case, the TAP let them all fly and certified all the successful flights. In the other case, the TAP refused to certify anyone that hadn’t built and flown at least one LPR/MPR.

What would you do?

 

[MJW]

IMHO anyone who can properly build and safely recover a high power rocket are good to go regardless of LP/MP experience. There should always be rigorous questions asked about the build process and a hands on on verification done for a cert flight though.

 

[David Schwantz]

We do lots of school and college teams. It is their first rocket and they bring it out to cert on.

 

[Titan II]

I think an interesting question for Level 1 is – what if the flier shows up and has never built or flown a single LPR or MPR in their life? In other words, if they show up and this Level 1 rocket is literally the first rocket they have ever built and they want you to certify them, do you do it?

If it looks well built and safe, and the person has common sense, absolutely yes. Some people have skills, and others do not. There are people on this forum seem to ask for advice for every little thing while constructing the rocket. They have no clue what is going on. If they showed up with it I would not certify, regardless of what it looked like.

 

[mtnmanak]

Interesting perspectives - clearly, at least one TAP out there does not feel the same and will not do Level 1 certs for fliers in this situation. I asked him about it at the time, and he said Tripoli gives TAPs broad leeway in determining who they will or will not certify. And, obviously, no one can force a TAP to certify anyone. He is also an L3CC and said that both the TAP and L3CC have discussed this issue an number of times, but have decided to explicitly not make any comments or decisions about it one way or the other. Apparently, there are people on both those committees that feel it should be a rule to have demonstrated some level of proficiency in model rocketry before being certified in HPR, but neither organization wants to risk alienating potential members by making it obligatory.

I am not sure what I think about it. It seems clear that some individuals are more than competent and capable of jumping straight into HPR, but it also feels a lot like going to get a CDL without having a regular driver license or ever driven a car before.

 

[David Schwantz]

Have you not been on an interstate?? There are drivers out there like that. They give us all a bad name

 

[sharkbait]

If it looks well built and safe, and the person has common sense, absolutely yes. Some people have skills, and others do not. There are people on this forum seem to ask for advice for every little thing while constructing the rocket. They have no clue what is going on. If they showed up with it I would not certify, regardless of what it looked like.

Tripoli is clear and that’s what we fly under, NAR is a little wishy washy and discretionary. We had 25 college flyers doing level 1 at our last launch aside from tying up the pads a little bit most went well and hopefully more than not will continue on flying beyond their team projects

 

[dhbarr]

A well built, well explained, well flown L1 is plenty of demonstration for me. After all, they could go cluster g76's or youtube-mix some rcandy.

If they're trying to do the right thing, I want to help them.

 

[MJW]

My L1 rocket, Bad Betty, was the first one I'd built and flown since a Estes Gnome when I was like 10. It was self designed, 4” diameter, 38mm motor, cardboard body with bamboo fins and a plastic nose cone. The cert flight was it's maiden voyage. I read all the books first of course. But, it flew straight with almost no spin, deployment was right at apogy, then came down nice and soft ~100 feet from the pad. Have I learned a lot more since then? Yes. Was it a unreasonable for a HPR to be my first design/build/flight? I don't think it was at all.

 

[smstachwick]

Have to agree that the ones listed in the OP are fails.

Also agree with Terry that, basically, on a Level 1 flight, outside of a full recovery failure or safety violation, if you can repack the recovery items, throw a new motor in and fly it again, it is a success.

For Level 2 and 3, I think the standard should be higher.

I think an interesting question for Level 1 is – what if the flier shows up and has never built or flown a single LPR or MPR in their life? In other words, if they show up and this Level 1 rocket is literally the first rocket they have ever built and they want you to certify them, do you do it?

This happens a lot with university teams that show up and want to be certified en masse. I am not sure how much this happens at other places, but it happens at almost every launch I attend at one of the sites that is close to a large engineering school.

On the one hand, I am not aware of any explicit NAR or Tripoli rule that says you need to have flown model rockets in order to get HPR certified, on the other hand, in many cases, these are 18 or 19 year old folks that, by their own admission, have not even seen a rocket launched before. By certifying them, you are handing them a license to do some incredibly dangerous things.

I have seen this go both ways. I have seen two different TAPs handle it completely differently. In one case, the TAP let them all fly and certified all the successful flights. In the other case, the TAP refused to certify anyone that hadn’t built and flown at least one LPR/MPR.

What would you do?

Speaking as a current L0 flyer, I think the requirements for L1 (not just the certification flight) should be more rigorous. Maybe not a hard and fast prior experience requirement, but I think moving the written test from L2 to L1 would be reasonable. I’ve seen a lot of confusion over the limits of LPR/MPR rockets and various other safety rules, so I’d feel more comfortable with NAR/Tripoli allowing first-time flyers to go for L1 if they were tested on them.

This might result in a smaller pool of HPR flyers but it would be more knowledgeable. I’d bet that that would also allow small clubs that currently require L2 for safety critical positions to comfortably allow more flyers, i.e. those at L1, to serve in them. This larger pool of qualified potential volunteers could take a lot of work off the shoulders of club officers and regular attendees.

 

[Titan II]

This might result in a smaller pool of HPR flyers but it would be more knowledgeable.

I am not sure how it would result in a smaller pool of HPR flyers. Have you seen the test? You are given all the questions and answers. It is a multiple choice recognition test. To be blunt, if you do not pass it you have no business getting certified. Actually, you have no business getting out of bed in the morning.

 

[smstachwick]

I am not sure how it would result in a smaller pool of HPR flyers. Have you seen the test? You are given all the questions and answers. It is a multiple choice recognition test. To be blunt, if you do not pass it you have no business getting certified. Actually, you have no business getting out of bed in the morning.

I looked at the pool of test questions online a while ago. As a whole, they seemed pretty easy.

On the other hand, I’ve seen people on the forums make mistakes in determining simple things like whether a rocket should be classified as high-power. Most places this chart from Soar Rocketry pops up, it’s there because somebody made one such mistake. I’ve had people correct me with it, I know that much.

Perhaps a testing requirement and the associated studying for it would help reinforce learning at earlier stages, which is critical for first-timers to fly safely.

 

[jmasterj]

I am not sure how it would result in a smaller pool of HPR flyers. Have you seen the test? You are given all the questions and answers. It is a multiple choice recognition test. To be blunt, if you do not pass it you have no business getting certified. Actually, you have no business getting out of bed in the morning.

I don't see how it would result in less HP flyers either. I totally agree that the test is incredibly easy: the entire question pool is already known. Would that be reasonable for a test in a college course? I don't think so.

CAR has the test with their Level 1, so NAR or Tripoli changing it wouldn't even be a first. I think it would have to get more difficult to mean much, though.

 

[OhioFlyer]

On the topic of people never having flown LPR/MPR and their first rocketing and flight being for their L1, I don't see a major issue there as long as the rocket is well built and they can point out the CP/CG of the rocket and have a basic understanding of how and why that is important along with a review of the rocket itself and the general questions that come up about construction, motor retention, recovery, etc (in my experience this is and should be the standard regardless).

As for college teams, very often they have mentors at their school and are likely affiliated in some way with the local club so I don't have the slightest issue with that.

I would say, the easiest way to keep things safe would be to have an L1 test. The NAR requires it for the Jr L1 group so why not just open the requirement to all? If someone is going to be scared off by a VERY straightforward test they really shouldn't be launching HPR in my opinion.

 

[mtnmanak]

I do advocate moving the test to Level 1 vs Level 2, but when I have mentioned that in the past to a number of TAPs and L3CCs, it was universally shot down as a possibility for the same reason they do not want to make LPR/MPR experience a pre-req - it would reduce the numbers of paying HPR members. NAR maintains a fairly decent Level 0 membership due to students, TARC teams, lifelong LPR/MPR fliers, etc, but Tripoli relies heavily on people moving to Level 1 to maintain their membership. Here are the membership numbers as of last month:

	NAR (as of Feb 2022)	Tripoli (as of 19 FEB 22)
Level 0	4220	1707
Junior/Mentor	185	53
Level 1	1863	1162
Level 2	1589	1645
Level 3	648	1173

Tripoli is heavily skewed to HPR (not surprising) and they have a pretty decent retention rate for HPR fliers, but Level 0's disappear quickly if they don't get certified in a relatively short period of time.

As for the difficulty of the test, I think the way it is right now is a perfect Level 1 test. It shouldn't be very difficult. The idea is to get people to memorize the pertinent portions of the regs and the basic HPR facts they need to be safe. By giving out the answers and making people memorize them, it is less of a "test" and more of a forced learning exercise, which I think is the right way to go.

At the end of the day, we do want more people to participate and enjoy this hobby, we just want to make sure they do it safely and don't ruin it for the rest of us.

 

[OzHybrid]

I do advocate moving the test to Level 1 vs Level 2, but when I have mentioned that in the past to a number of TAPs and L3CCs, it was universally shot down as a possibility for the same reason they do not want to make LPR/MPR experience a pre-req - it would reduce the numbers of paying HPR members. NAR maintains a fairly decent Level 0 membership due to students, TARC teams, lifelong LPR/MPR fliers, etc, but Tripoli relies heavily on people moving to Level 1 to maintain their membership. Here are the membership numbers as of last month:

	NAR (as of Feb 2022)	Tripoli (as of 19 FEB 22)
Level 0	4220	1707
Junior/Mentor	185	53
Level 1	1863	1162
Level 2	1589	1645
Level 3	648	1173

Tripoli is heavily skewed to HPR (not surprising) and they have a pretty decent retention rate for HPR fliers, but Level 0's disappear quickly if they don't get certified in a relatively short period of time.

As for the difficulty of the test, I think the way it is right now is a perfect Level 1 test. It shouldn't be very difficult. The idea is to get people to memorize the pertinent portions of the regs and the basic HPR facts they need to be safe. By giving out the answers and making people memorize them, it is less of a "test" and more of a forced learning exercise, which I think is the right way to go.

At the end of the day, we do want more people to participate and enjoy this hobby, we just want to make sure they do it safely and don't ruin it for the rest of us.

Tripolis skew to HPR will be due to experimental being allowed for L2 and L3 fliers. Other than that I think we're all the same group of chums.
Norm

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

On the original question, I would say those are all fails. I would also fail a zipper. The kinds of damage that I would allow are the routine fin chips and other minor scrapes that would not prevent the rocket from being prepped and flown immediately. I think some people will pass a rocket that could be field repaired with CA or 5-minute epoxy and flown the same day. But if that’s the case, I think I’d be inclined to say “prove it”, and have them do the repair and retry.

Regarding “extra requirements”, like prior experience with MPR before L1 or maybe experience with dual deploy before L2, that’s kind of a tricky area. I don’t think the national organizations need to stiffen requirements, but I am starting to understand more why individuals might have their own standards for who they might agree to serve as a certification witness. So for example, if a person had never flown a rocket before and showed up with an L1 rocket and wanted to certify on their very first flight of any rocket ever, I know there’s nothing in the rules against it, but there’s also nothing in the rules requiring me to agree to work with that person, and I might not want my name on their paperwork. Ask someone else. In reality, I’d probably talk to them and gauge their knowledge before deciding. There are definitely some people who could do it safely.

I actually experienced this myself for my L2. The person who handles most of the L2 and L3 certifications for one of my clubs was reluctant to agree to let me try for L2 because he wanted me to do some dual deploy flights first. There is no official requirement for that, but that’s what he wanted. I have very little interest in electronics. I wanted to do my L2 with a Warlock using motor eject, which is perfectly within the rules. His pushback was that once I had my L2, I would legally be allowed to fly up to a big L motor, which wouldn’t even have motor eject, and he didn’t want my first electronic deployment to be on a 50-pound rocket flying on an L motor. I understand his point.

On the big university groups, I don’t have a problem with big groups of students all building the same kind of kit and flying the same kind of motor, certifying 25 L1s on a single day. BUT! I have seen a lot of cases where I would not personally certify some of the individuals, and I know for certain they got signed off after not legitimately completing all the requirements. Just from casual conversations, I know they could not answer the basic questions:

Where is the CP? How do you know?
Where is the CG? How do you know?
Is it stable? How do you know?
How much does it weigh?
What motor are you using?
Does that motor have enough thrust for the rocket? How do you know?
Will the rocket leave the rail at a safe speed? How do you know?
What delay are you using? How did you calculate it?

 

[smstachwick]

On the original question, I would say those are all fails. I would also fail a zipper. The kinds of damage that I would allow are the routine fin chips and other minor scrapes that would not prevent the rocket from being prepped and flown immediately. I think some people will pass a rocket that could be field repaired with CA or 5-minute epoxy and flown the same day. But if that’s the case, I think I’d be inclined to say “prove it”, and have them do the repair and retry.

Regarding “extra requirements”, like prior experience with MPR before L1 or maybe experience with dual deploy before L2, that’s kind of a tricky area. I don’t think the national organizations need to stiffen requirements, but I am starting to understand more why individuals might have their own standards for who they might agree to serve as a certification witness. So for example, if a person had never flown a rocket before and showed up with an L1 rocket and wanted to certify on their very first flight of any rocket ever, I know there’s nothing in the rules against it, but there’s also nothing in the rules requiring me to agree to work with that person, and I might not want my name on their paperwork. Ask someone else. In reality, I’d probably talk to them and gauge their knowledge before deciding. There are definitely some people who could do it safely.

I actually experienced this myself for my L2. The person who handles most of the L2 and L3 certifications for one of my clubs was reluctant to agree to let me try for L2 because he wanted me to do some dual deploy flights first. There is no official requirement for that, but that’s what he wanted. I have very little interest in electronics. I wanted to do my L2 with a Warlock using motor eject, which is perfectly within the rules. His pushback was that once I had my L2, I would legally be allowed to fly up to a big L motor, which wouldn’t even have motor eject, and he didn’t want my first electronic deployment to be on a 50-pound rocket flying on an L motor. I understand his point.

On the big university groups, I don’t have a problem with big groups of students all building the same kind of kit and flying the same kind of motor, certifying 25 L1s on a single day. BUT! I have seen a lot of cases where I would not personally certify some of the individuals, and I know for certain they got signed off after not legitimately completing all the requirements. Just from casual conversations, I know they could not answer the basic questions:

Where is the CP? How do you know?
Where is the CG? How do you know?
Is it stable? How do you know?
How much does it weigh?
What motor are you using?
Does that motor have enough thrust for the rocket? How do you know?
Will the rocket leave the rail at a safe speed? How do you know?
What delay are you using? How did you calculate it?

When I competed in Science Olympiad in my youth, it was pretty obvious which of the gadgets for the build events were made by the competitors and which ones were made by the “supervising” adults. For one, the ones built by the adults were too polished and precise to have been put together by somebody at the middle school level. If you want to convince me that your kid built something, the best way to do that is for it to have some crooked lines, a few wrinkles, maybe even a spot where it got broken and had to be glued back together again. But if those aren’t present and your kid is really that good of a craftsperson, they’ll be able to talk about the design, development, and testing process in detail.

The rubber-band airplane that I built together with my teammate, our coach supervising with his hands firmly in his pockets, ended up placing better than any other that I had judged, either by appearance or conversation, to be a “kid plane.” Only the “dad planes” ended up beating us. I’m still very proud of that, even if the announced results had us in 14th overall.

Do we certify those people flying “dad rockets”? Or “professor rockets”? Or “rest-of-the-team-built-this-while-you-sat-around-eating-Doritos rockets”? That’s up to the certification witness (to a point, anyway, I think L3 specifies the attempting flyers build the rocket substantially by themself).

 

[jmasterj]

From the NAR Lvl 1 requirements:

The Level 1 High Power Certification Candidate must build the rocket that they wish to use for their certification attempt.

and also

Teams attempting to certify cannot use the same rocket, but rather are required to each build their own model.

If enforced, "dad rockets" shouldn't be an issue.

 

[MikeT]

Over the years, I've seen different things that have either been ok or not ok for getting your cert on a flight depending on the person(s) observing the flight. Some have said if the rocket can be launched again, some have said with 'minimal damage' some have said zippers are ok, some have said...

I'd like some opinions to a few things that have happened on launches as to being ok for passing:

Wrong delay, hard recovery, broken fin.

Parachute doesn't deploy but rocket not damaged.

Fin(s) break off on landing.

Nose cone separates from rest of rocket.

Motor retention fails but everything is undamaged.

I'd like to get opinions on whether these would still pass for certifications, feel free to add other anomalies.

Nothing to discuss all are failures. The requirements are very clear.

Mike

 

[Banzai88]

The overall issue that I have with the L1 process goes something like this: Well-meaning and enthusiastic L1 prospect shows up with half/poorly made rocket, and the entirety of the club groups together and contributes supplies to finish/fix said rocket. Prospect launches, recovers, and gets his L1 sign off while the rocket is still under parachute.

What’s missing? ALL of those answers to the questions on the back of the certification form (NAR) that the prospective L1 is SUPPOSED TO ANSWER and know! To the way I read it, you’re supposed to show up KNOWING those answer, not getting spoon fed those answers and not seeking them out AFTER the sign off with successive builds. If folks are refusing to sign off on those grounds, I totally understand.

I have zero issue with using the build session as an instruction session, but to my mind, the L1 prospect should be able to at least repeat the answers to a 3rd party, and hopefully demonstrate an understanding. After all, it’s not as if ANY of the L1 or L2 questions and answers aren’t published and available in the palm of your hand 24/7/365.

From what I’ve seen the last 5-6 years, those folks who show up able to answer any question posed on the certification sheet are the ones who stay in rocketry and commit the fewest party fouls as they grow in rocketry.

And don't even get me started on the folks who L1/L2 on the same low/slow rocket on the same day and then go L3CC/TAP shopping........

 

[jimzcatz]

I actually experienced this myself for my L2. The person who handles most of the L2 and L3 certifications for one of my clubs was reluctant to agree to let me try for L2 because he wanted me to do some dual deploy flights first. There is no official requirement for that, but that’s what he wanted. I have very little interest in electronics. I wanted to do my L2 with a Warlock using motor eject, which is perfectly within the rules. His pushback was that once I had my L2, I would legally be allowed to fly up to a big L motor, which wouldn’t even have motor eject, and he didn’t want my first electronic deployment to be on a 50-pound rocket flying on an L motor. I understand his point.

Your witness overstepped his/her authority. He does not have the power to make such requirements. He can recommend but not require, he should have stepped aside and steered you to another witness. Who says your first electronic deployment has to be on a 50-pound rocket flying on an L motor.